Well, it looks like having declared a non-static opCall makes the
automatically generated constructor for the struct unusable - which
may or may not be a bug

I do think it's a bug. Only a static opCall should interfere with
the constructor.

Might want to add this case (as I think it is important, and doesn't
yet seem to have an exact duplicate report) to bug 6036. Looks like
Kenji is on the case, and he usually comes up with a pull request :)
-Steve

Yeah, I don't want it to be. I want to use opCall on an instance, not on
the type.

Well, it looks like having declared a non-static opCall makes the
automatically generated constructor for the struct unusable - which may or may
not be a bug (there are similar issues with declaring opCast). If you just
declare a constructor, it should solve the problem.
- Jonathan M Davis

Yeah, I don't want it to be. I want to use opCall on an instance, not on
the type.

Well, it looks like having declared a non-static opCall makes the
automatically generated constructor for the struct unusable - which may
or may
not be a bug (there are similar issues with declaring opCast). If you
just
declare a constructor, it should solve the problem.

Well, it looks like having declared a non-static opCall makes the
automatically generated constructor for the struct unusable - which
may or may not be a bug

I do think it's a bug. Only a static opCall should interfere with the
constructor.

Might want to add this case (as I think it is important, and doesn't yet
seem to have an exact duplicate report) to bug 6036. Looks like Kenji is
on the case, and he usually comes up with a pull request :)
-Steve